Defence evidence may be narrowly reopened to secure relevant official police records.

The petitioner challenged the Trial Court’s order dated 9 September 2026, which dismissed his fresh application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. and closed his defence evidence.

He sought a limited opportunity to summon a competent police/PCR/ERSS official and obtain the official record for Event ID 6982371, dated 8 May 2023, concerning an earlier neighbour dispute; the event details had been identified through RTI information.

The petitioner stated that an earlier application contained an incorrect diary/DD number, was withdrawn with leave to file afresh, and that the relevant official was already named in his defence witness list.

The State raised no objection to the petition.

1. Whether the Trial Court’s dismissal of the fresh Section 91 Cr.P.C. application and closure of defence evidence should be set aside to permit production of the specified police/PCR/ERSS record.

2. Whether the petitioner should receive a limited opportunity to summon the competent official and conclude his defence evidence, subject to restrictions on adjournments.

Section 91 Cr.P.C. provides for a court to summon documents or other things considered necessary or desirable for an investigation, inquiry, trial, or other proceeding.

Section 482 Cr.P.C. preserves the High Court’s inherent power to make orders necessary to give effect to the Code, prevent abuse of process, or secure the ends of justice; Article 227 of the Constitution confers supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts.

The Court applied these provisions to grant limited relief in the interests of justice, without reopening the trial generally or allowing an unrestricted opportunity to lead evidence.

No precedent was cited.

The Court considered that the requested record was identified by an Event ID and date, the petitioner had explained the incorrect identifying particulars in his earlier application, and the proposed official was already included in the defence witness list.

Given the State’s lack of objection and the existing witness list, the Court found that the interests of justice would be met by allowing the petition on a confined basis.

To balance that opportunity against further delay, it limited the restored defence evidence to what was necessary for the Section 91 application and required the petitioner to conclude his evidence within one day without seeking an adjournment.

It set aside the 9 September 2026 order insofar as it dismissed the fresh Section 91 Cr.P.C. application and closed the defence evidence, restored the defence evidence to the limited extent necessary, and permitted the petitioner to summon the competent police/PCR/ERSS official to produce the record relating to Event ID 6982371 dated 8 May 2023.

The petitioner was directed to conclude his defence evidence within one day and not seek an adjournment.